The Cine Technician (1938-1939)

July-August, 1939 T 11 E CI N E T E C 11 N I C I A N ,M TAX LVIN describes WITHDRAWN The increased import duties* would drive the making of duplicate negatives out of the country and deprive British lahs of a fortnight's work per annum which would almost inevitably he met by a reduction of staff. Unemployment, we concluded, had been of grave concern to the unions during the past year. Anything that prevented the reabsorption of unemployed workers would aggravate a situation already lamentable. Such a possibility was presumably not envisaged when the decision to make the new tax was reached, and we therefore strongly urged that the proposals be reviewed. We were promised, as all the other delegations were, that our views would be sympathetically considered, and we came away not unhopeful. Meanwhile Members of Parliament had been contacted and our views were made known in the House. There were other developments. Mr. 1). E. Griffiths, President of the Kinematograph Renters' Society, called a meeting of all sections of the trade. A.C.T. accepted the invitation and all sections of the industry attended. There was not one important group outside. As Tom Williams, M.l\, said in the House, Sir John Simon had done in five minutes what years of effort had previously failed to achieve. He had muted the entire trade. This meeting decided on a trade deputation to the Chancellor. The request was granted and .Mr. Griffiths led us to the Treasury. Every section put forward a precis of its own case and the President of the K.E.S. wedded all the various points of view together in an excellent introductory speech. There were six other speakers. For labour, 1 stressed that organised labour had not had an easy time in the film industry, but now both in production and exhibition there is almost general recognition of Trade Unions and many agreements had been negotiated. Others were in the course of negotiation at the present time. Any adverse effect on the industry, anything which affected the margin of profit, must tend to make those negotiations more difficult. A.C.T. members engaged in film production worked an average of 11 weeks last year. Considerable hardship consequent upon unemployment had resulted. Even the slightest decrease in production would make that hardship very grave indeed. We were again informed that very careful attention would be paid to all w e bad said. And again we came away not unhopeful. [Continued ort next page) *The import duties, unlike the excise duties, hare not yet been repealed. A.C.T. is pressing for the original difference between the negative and the first print to be restored in order to provide the necessary inducement to importers of foreign films to continue having dup. negatives made in this country. MUST CINEMAS INCREASE PRICES? ]|L MUST CINEMAS SHORTEN \ PROGRAMMES? MUST NEWS REELS BE KILLED? J§L must studios reduce H| PRODUCTION? JLr MUST THERE BE MORE ^| UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE FILM 1 INDUSTRY? YES! -IF THE NEW FILM TAX BECOMES LAW Burdened with taxation as it is. the Film Industry, which paid over £6,000,000 in entertainment tax alone last year, will be forced to pass on the increased film tax to you — the regular patrons of cinema theatre If there is not a direct increase in prices of admission, It may be necessary: — (a) To curtail the length of programmes (b) Cut news films to a minimum (c) Produce fewer feature films, shorts and documentaries (d) Put many thousands of film employees out of work THUS WOULD BE STRANGLED ONE OF THE NATION'S MOST PROLIFIC SOURCES OF PROPAGANDA BOTH AT HOME AND ABROAD Issued by : The Proprietors and Employees of the Film Industry of Great Britain, Broadmead House, Panton Street. Havmarket, London, S.W.I The advertisement that helped